Good day all, in response to the increase in transphobia we’ve experience since the For Women Scotland v Scotland Supreme Court decision, seemingly a mix of genuine malice and people tripping up with a topic they’re unfamiliar with, I’ve taken the initiative to write some guidelines on how to engage in the topic and clearing up some common misconceptions.
https://guide.feddit.uk/politics/transphobia.html
I’m not all that happy with them, I want something more comprehensive but my time has been pretty taxed lately and I don’t want my perfectionism to stand in the way of having these out. If there’s any issues, glaring omissions or whatnot, then please let me know or make a pull request here.
This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum, so I don’t really see your point. If you want to discuss the Biblical definition of man/woman and whether that includes trans people in a theology post then sure? That would be appropriate context.
I mean that fundamentally, there is nothing more true about a cis person saying they’re a man than a trans person saying they’re a man.
This comment along with others like
and
make it clear that feddit.uk has an agenda: it’s for lefty social discussion.
Adding @[email protected] @[email protected]
Can I suggest making that agenda clear in the “Who are we?” section of feddit.uk 's front page so that people are aware of what they’re signing up for and that this isn’t just a general UK instance? In particular, it seems egregious to me that there is no mention of the fact that conservatives aren’t welcome.
That’s a very dishonest reading of what I wrote, but not surprising coming from you. This not being a conservative forum isn’t the same as conservatives not being welcome, I believe we even have some around. But they still have to follow the rules.
This is getting very tiresome for what is a very little ask, don’t be transphobic. This has been a rule on the site literally from inception.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whatever it is that feddit.uk is not, please state that up front in the “Who are we?” section. If feddit.uk is not a conservative forum, please state “feddit.uk is not a conservative forum” in the “Who are we?” section. That would at least give people more clarity on what feddit.uk is, who is here and what they can expect when they post from here.
By the same token, clarifying what feddit.uk is and is not in the “Who are we?” section seems to me like a very little ask.
But the new “guidelines” and more importantly the statements from an admin (yourself) in comments under this post about what feddit.uk is not, are all new. As far as I know, philisophical discussion of trans issues had never been prohibited before.
My understanding of feddit.uk until this post was that it would reflect general wider social mores of British society: tolerance, even of those who have what we feel to be reprehensible views, up to the point where it’s clear a person is uncivil or unreasonable. Now my understanding of feddit.uk is different: there are some areas of discussion which are not tolerated under any circumstances, regardless civility or reasonableness. There is now an ideological component, not to the makeup of the user population (which has always been obvious), but to the governance of the instance which is a whole different kettle of fish and very new. Now, feddit.uk has an official ideological position: not a conservative forum, social discussion, no philosophical debate about trans issues, etc.
A conservative forum is a forum run by conservatives for conservatives and limits itself to conservative positions, feddit.uk is demonstrably not this. Feddit.uk is not many things, it’s not a conservative forum, it’s not a socialist forum, it’s not a biking forum. It’s a general purpose discussion forum that can touch on topics like conservativism, socialism or biking. This is a descriptive not prescriptive statement and I don’t see how a reasonable person would describe this place differently. I’m not going to list all the things this place is not as that’s an infinity long list.
Again, this place has always had rules on what isn’t allowed, including ‘no transphobia’. Polite bigotry is still bigotry, do you think we should allow race realists if they mind their Ps and Qs correctly? There are many who feel their bigotry — weather that be racism, sexism, homophobia — isn’t ‘unreasonable’, but even tolerant Britain doesn’t let them inject these believes wherever, social spaces like pubs and community events still limit what can take place in them. I don’t see why we should be more accepting of transphobia just because it’s more socially acceptable at the moment.
‘Philosophical discussion of trans issues’ is such a non-statment, say what you actually mean instead of hiding behind such meaningless rhetoric. The only things these guidelines ask you to do is not promote fear or hatred of trans people and that you aren’t allowed to say that a trans person’s gender identity is less valid than a cis person’s. These aren’t unreasonable asks and I wonder what reasonable ‘philosophical discussion’ this excludes, unless you’re just looking for ‘civil’ ways of calling a trans man a woman.
Says who?! It can mean whatever you define it to mean. You’re just making stuff up, you’re no authority.
This is not the way you presented feddit.uk before. You seemed to be explicitly excluding conservativism.
Of course but I would point out that social conservativism is the dominant political philosophy in the UK so it would be odd and in fact misleading not to be up front about excluding conservativism in an instance that advertises itself as a general UK instance. Hence my concern.
Most definitely. How else could such views be shown up for what they are using sound reason and subtle but devastating wit, as is the British way? (As opposed to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU UR DUMB I’MA BAN U”.)
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this but I would note that with one exception, all the racist people I’ve had the misfortune of encountering have been in pubs. And moreover, I wouldn’t want to spend time in any pub where any kinds of ‘certain’ discussions were outright prohibited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jssqYTMf9E
Debating isn’t the same thing as accepting.
It seems you’ve changed your tune:
1. In response to the question “The instance is never an appropriate context and any such discussion whatsoever is prohibited?”: “Yes, …”
2. “It’s about protecting a vulnerable minority. … I don’t want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I’m going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality.”
And also, to be clear:
3. In response to the question “if someone created a linguistic philosophy community on feddit.uk and in that community members held a discussion on ‘a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”’, is that prohibited or not?” which is about discussion of whether a trans person’s “I’m a man” is less than a cis person’s “I’m a man” and doesn’t necessarily imply saying anything one way or the other: “no [yes] as that’s pretty clearly …”
There’s plenty. Wouldn’t it be great if we created a place where such wonderings could be explored honestly without concern over being banned? What a pity that instead there’s a place of dullness, with rules motivated by fear.
It’s almost like I was saying what I mean by conservative forum.
It certainly looks like that when you cut my response off.
I’m done with this discussion, you’re not engaging in good faith and what you want from this place stands at odds with what the majority of feddit.uk’s users want this place to be. There has always been action on bigotry, you failing to notice doesn’t mean this place was ever some free speech absolutist debate club.
What is not?
Ah, this makes sense now, thanks for clearing it up, and the work you do!
I think as the fediverse grows, conservative forums will start to appear and sprout up eventually.